
Lawyers and police officers are supposed to know, enforce, and obey the laws. Here in North Carolina, Attorney General Josh Stein is both the state’s top cop and top lawyer, therefore, he, more than anyone, should be held accountable if he breaks the law. Instead, Stein is now trying to slither out of prosecution by arguing that the law he broke is unconstitutional. And it’s not a brand new law that he was unaware of. It is a state law that dates back to 1931. So why is Stein just now trying to get it changed? BECAUSE HE BROKE IT! That’s why.
The saga began in 2020 when Stein was running against long-time Forsyth County district attorney Jim O’Neill. That year, one of the hot campaign issues was the backlog of unprocessed rape kits on the local and state levels. Both sides exploited the issue for political purposes, but Stein crossed the line with a TV ad that accused O’Neill’s office of having “left 1,500 rape kits sitting on the shelf,” the implication being that O’Neill’s failure to test those rape kits in a timely manner allowed rapists to roam free and rape more victims. O’Neill claimed that Stein broke a 1931 law that “makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly circulate false, derogatory reports about a candidate with the intent of hurting that candidate’s chances in the election” (source AP). Violators of the law would pay a fine and could spend up to 60 days in jail.
Not surprisingly, a Wake County grand jury recently found that Stein should be indicted. But the very next day, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1, to override the grand jury, essentially preventing the law from being enforced until Stein’s team had time to try and prove that the law as written is unconstitutional. The panel is comprised of two Democratic judges and one Republican judge. The two Democrats sided with Stein, who is also a Democrat. So much for justice being blind. In their ruling, the two Democrat judges said that Stein’s TV ad was protected as free speech, thus his challenge to the 1931 law would likely succeed. Their decision will have the effect of running out the clock on O’Neill’s team because the statute of limitations expires next year.
In her dissenting opinion, the lone Republican judge on the panel wrote, “Stein’s campaign, the ad production company, and the woman who appeared in the ad, haven’t shown they are entitled to this extraordinary relief…the State will forever lose its opportunity to enforce the law if the grand jury proceedings are stopped.”
Clearly the dissenting judge doesn’t believe that free speech under the First Amendment protects lying and defaming, and I agree. But the sad truth is if we start enforcing the 1931 law every time a candidate lies in an ad, then the jails would be overflowing with politicians.
And so, boys and girls, the civics lesson we can all take from this story is very clear. The next time the police stop you for driving 80 mph in a 35 mph zone, just tell the judge he can’t fine you or take away your license because you and your attorneys are working to have the speed limit changed to 85 mph. Tell him Josh Stein said it’s OK.





























Posted September 6, 2022 By Triad TodayThe Realities of Student Loan Forgiveness
Last month, President Biden announced his plan to forgive a portion of student loan debt, and offer relief for some 45 million borrowers, over one million of who reside in North Carolina. Here’s how it works: If you took out a federal student loan, and you earn less than $125,000 per year (or less than $250,000 as a married couple), you could be eligible to have 10% of your debt forgiven. If you have a student loan and also received a Pell Grant through the Department of Education, you could get up to $20,000 of your debt forgiven (note that according to the White House, nearly all Pell Grant recipients come from families who earn less than $60,000 per year). It is an admirable initiative to be sure, but one that is fraught with questions about its legality, political motives, economic viability, and fairness.
FAIRNESS
First of all, is Biden’s plan fair? Right-winger Reed Rubinstein, director of oversight and investigations for the America First Legal Foundation told TIME, “This is such a slap in the face to everybody who did what they were supposed to do.” Translation? Millions of students honored the terms of their loans and worked hard to pay them back, and they are not eligible for one red cent of relief. “It’s also not fair to the untold number of Americans who never went to college,” said Alfredo Ortiz, CEO of the Job Creators Network. Moreover, if you took out a private loan, the Biden plan won’t help you either. One could also argue that it’s not fair to all of us taxpayers who expected to be repaid with interest for every dollar we loaned these students. Speaking of taxpayers, the student loan forgiveness program has one catch: recipients of relief must count the amount of debt forgiven as personal income. That means about 27 million low-income students could be on the hook to pay taxes on $20,000 of income. It doesn’t seem fair, but it’s a harsh reality and one that was best explained in a classic scene from Leave it to Beaver.
Beaver: So Wally, you’re really gonna make $10 a day?
Wally: Sure, and they’re gonna take withholding out of it.
Beaver: What’s withholding?
Wally: That’s money they take out of your salary to run the government with.
Beaver: Gee, I didn’t know they took money away from kids to run the government.
Wally: Sure, even if you’re a little baby and you have some money, they’ll come and take it away from you.
POLITICAL MOTIVES
In 2020, Joe Biden campaigned on how we needed to help students saddled with college debt. At that time, education debt topped $1.7 trillion dollars. But while debt was high, talk was cheap. During his first week in office, the President signed a record number of executive orders about everything but, you guessed it, student debt. Biden, who had spent most of his adult life in and around the Capitol, hinted that he needed Congressional support to enact a meaningful student debt forgiveness program, so he did nothing for two years. Then suddenly a little more than two months before the midterm elections, he announced his bold plan. There’s nothing like coming to the rescue of 40 million voters to motivate a politician.
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
Not everyone is a fan of Biden’s rescue plan for students. Alfredo Ortiz commented to TIME that, “A student loan bailout will further exacerbate inflation, increase the deficit, and lead to higher taxes.”
It begs the question, should Biden’s program be put on hold until inflation is under control? The answer would seem to be yes.
LEGALITY
President Biden is relying on the 2003 HEROES Act for the legal authority to launch his student loan forgiveness program. The Act gives the Secretary of Education authority to “change student financial assistance programs during a war or national emergency.” In this case, Biden claims the pandemic and its aftermath qualify as a national emergency. But critics like Third Way’s Vice President Lanae Erickson disagree. “It’s on shaky legal ground,” he told TIME’s Brian Bennett.
Biden’s program is supposed to start in January, but anyone expecting to receive loan relief then may be disappointed if legal challenges ensue. Nevertheless, regardless of the pitfalls, controversies, and potential delays associated with Biden’s loan forgiveness program, the White House recommends that qualified borrowers visit www.StudentAid.gov/debtrelief to apply. Or, if you’re skeptical you can visit its companion website, www.ImFromTheGovtAndImHereToHelp.com.